PCMark 10 Storage Bench - Real-World Access Traces

There are a number of storage benchmarks that can subject a device to artificial access traces by varying the mix of reads and writes, the access block sizes, and the queue depth / number of outstanding data requests. We saw results from two popular ones - ATTO, and CrystalDiskMark - in a previous section. More serious benchmarks, however, actually replicate access traces from real-world workloads to determine the suitability of a particular device for a particular workload. Real-world access traces may be used for simulating the behavior of computing activities that are limited by storage performance. Examples include booting an operating system or loading a particular game from the disk.

PCMark 10's storage bench (introduced in v2.1.2153) includes four storage benchmarks that use relevant real-world traces from popular applications and common tasks to fully test the performance of the latest modern drives:

  • The Full System Drive Benchmark uses a wide-ranging set of real-world traces from popular applications and common tasks to fully test the performance of the fastest modern drives. It involves a total of 204 GB of write traffic.
  • The Quick System Drive Benchmark is a shorter test with a smaller set of less demanding real-world traces. It subjects the device to 23 GB of writes.
  •  
  • The Data Drive Benchmark is designed to test drives that are used for storing files rather than applications. These typically include NAS drives, USB sticks, memory cards, and other external storage devices. The device is subjected to 15 GB of writes.
  • The Drive Performance Consistency Test is a long-running and extremely demanding test with a heavy, continuous load for expert users. In-depth reporting shows how the performance of the drive varies under different conditions. This writes more than 23 TB of data to the drive.

Despite the data drive benchmark appearing most suitable for testing direct-attached storage, we opted to run the full system drive benchmark as part of our evaluation flow. Many of us use portable flash drives as boot drives and storage for Steam games. These types of use-cases are addressed only in the full system drive benchmark.

The Full System Drive Benchmark comprises of 23 different traces. For the purpose of presenting results, we classify them under five different categories:

  • Boot: Replay of storage access trace recorded while booting Windows 10
  • Creative: Replay of storage access traces recorded during the start up and usage of Adobe applications such as Acrobat, After Effects, Illustrator, Premiere Pro, Lightroom, and Photoshop.
  • Office: Replay of storage access traces recorded during the usage of Microsoft Office applications such as Excel and Powerpoint.
  • Gaming: Replay of storage access traces recorded during the start up of games such as Battlefield V, Call of Duty Black Ops 4, and Overwatch.
  • File Transfers: Replay of storage access traces (Write-Only, Read-Write, and Read-Only) recorded during the transfer of data such as ISOs and photographs.

PCMark 10 also generates an overall score, bandwidth, and average latency number for quick comparison of different drives. The sub-sections in the rest of the page reference the access traces specified in the PCMark 10 Technical Guide.

Booting Windows 10

The read-write bandwidth recorded for each drive in the boo access trace is presented below.

Windows 10 Boot

USB SuperSpeed 20Gbps doesn't matter for the boot process - in fact, the Extreme Portable SSD v2 using the SN550E behind a USB 3.2 Gen 2 (10 Gbps) bridge scores better than the P50 and the Extreme PRO v2 on the Haswell testbed in this benchmark.

Creative Workloads

The read-write bandwidth recorded for each drive in the sacr, saft, sill, spre, slig, sps, aft, exc, ill, ind, psh, and psl access traces are presented below.

Startup - Adobe Acrobat

These workloads also seem to get little benefit from the move to USB SuperSpeed 20Gbps. In almost all cases, the SanDisk Extreme v2 performs better than the Extreme PRO v2 on the same testbed. The P50 seems to suffer from some handicaps for these types of workloads.

Office Workloads

The read-write bandwidth recorded for each drive in the exc and pow access traces are presented below.

Usage - Microsoft Excel

The trend seen in earlier PCMark 10 storage workloads repeats here - the Extreme edging out the Extreme PRO v2 slightly, while the P50 lags well behind.

Gaming Workloads

The read-write bandwidth recorded for each drive in the bf, cod, and ow access traces are presented below.

Startup - Battlefield V

This section finally sees the P50 live up to its billing as a game drive - in the Call of Duty loading times, it finally scores almost as well as the Extreme PRO v2, and the Extreme v2 lags well behind. However, overall, the Extreme PRO v2 seems to be a better fit for gaming workloads.

Files Transfer Workloads

The read-write bandwidth recorded for each drive in the cp1, cp2, cp3, cps1, cps2, and cps3 access traces are presented below.

Duplicating ISOs (Read-Write)

In most workloads, the USB SuperSpeed 20Gbps drives come out on top, with the Extreme PRO v2 slightly edging out the P50.

Overall Scores

PCMark 10 reports an overall score based on the observed bandwidth and access times for the full workload set. The score, bandwidth, and average access latency for each of the drives are presented below.

Full System Drive Benchmark Bandwidth (MBps)

The WD_BLACK P50 scores are a bit behind the Extreme PRO v2 and the Extreme v2 when considered on a testbed-by-testbed basis. When limited by the host port to 10Gbps, the gulf is not significant, though. It may just be that Western Digital has tweaked the firmware of the P50 to cater to gaming workloads alone.

AnandTech DAS Suite - Benchmarking for Performance Consistency Worst-Case Consistency, Thermals, and Power Consumption
Comments Locked

81 Comments

View All Comments

  • vol.2 - Monday, October 5, 2020 - link


    So wait for USB4 devices then?
  • boredsysadmin - Monday, October 5, 2020 - link

    No, USB 3.3 Rev 2 Gen 5 10.13 Final
  • vol.2 - Monday, October 5, 2020 - link

    So USB4 will be gimped to 10gb rates for USB4 devices? Regardless, what makes you say 3.3, etc?
  • magreen - Monday, October 5, 2020 - link

    He's joking. Poking fun at the ridiculous (re)naming conventions of the USB-IF
  • Guspaz - Monday, October 5, 2020 - link

    It's like they're determined to intentionally come up with the most obtuse and confusing naming conventions possible. Which is how you end up with a situation where USB 3.0 == USB 3.1 Gen 1 == USB 3.2 Gen 1x1 == SuperSpeed USB 5Gbps, because having four different names for exactly the same thing is obviously the right approach.
  • BikeDude - Tuesday, October 6, 2020 - link

    Screw you guys.

    I'm sticking with USB _Full_ Speed. That is the fastest of them all. Full speed ahead!

    Oh...wait...
  • Alistair - Tuesday, March 23, 2021 - link

    it's a year later, and I'm still laughing so hard at this thread :)
  • throAU - Sunday, October 11, 2020 - link

    This is no accident. The USB consortium is run by PC vendors who want to be able to call their crappy old widget from last year USB 3.2 without any hardware change, and hide the fact that it is old and slow in the fine print.
  • throAU - Sunday, October 11, 2020 - link

    USB 4.1 Gen 1 will probably still be 5 gigabit
  • Huzzam - Wednesday, October 14, 2020 - link

    no way man, i'm sticking with USB 3.3. Rev 2 Gen 5 10.12 beta... so called "final" causes covid and gayness, one of which is really bad

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now